Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) provides significant evidentiary value in crime scene interpretation and reconstruction. In this work, we develop a quantitative methodology using digital image analysis techniques to differentiate impact bloodstain patterns. The bloodstain patterns were digitally imaged and analyzed using image analysis algorithms. Our analysis of 72 unique bloodstain patterns, comprising more than 490,000 individual droplet stains, indicates that the mean drop size in a gunshot spatter pattern is at most 30% smaller than the mean drop stain size in blunt instrument patterns. In contrast, we demonstrate that the spatial distribution of the droplet stains-their density as a function of position in the pattern-significantly differs between gunshot and blunt instrument patterns, with densities as much as 400% larger for gunshot impacts. Thus, quantitative metrics involving the spatial distribution of droplet stains within a bloodstain pattern can be useful for objective differentiation between blunt instrument and gunshot bloodstain patterns.
Forensic scientists are often asked to physically compare duct tape samples found in association with criminal activity. This study was designed to statistically evaluate the error and accuracy rates associated with duct tape physical end matching. The experimental design consisted of a blind study in which three researchers independently analyzed eight types of tape subjected to four methods of separation. The lowest mean accuracy observed was 98.15%, the highest mean false-positive rate observed was 3.33%, and the highest mean false-negative rate was 2.67%. Overall, high accuracy with low false-positive and false-negative error rates were observed. This study confirms the use of physical end matching in identifying duct tape samples as matching or nonmatching and that the differences between analysts, brands, tape grades, tape color, and methods of separation have varying contributions to misidentifications and inconclusive results. This study also demonstrates the importance of peer review in duct tape analysis.
The study of fractures of glass, glassy-type materials, and plastic has long been of interest to the forensic community. The focus of this interest has been the use of glass and polymer fractures to associate items of evidence under the assumption that each fracture is different. Generally, it is well-accepted that deviations exist; however, the emphasis has been on classifying and predicting fracture rather than determining that each fracture is different. This study documented the controlled fracture patterns of 60 glass panes, 60 glass bottles, and 60 plastic tail light lens covers using both dynamic impact and static pressure methods under closely controlled conditions. Each pattern was intercompared, and based on the limited specimens tested in this study, the results illustrate that the fracture patterns are different. Further repetitive studies, under controlled conditions, will be needed to provide more statistical significance to the theory that each fracture forms a nonreproducible fracture pattern.
The discrimination of noncolored transparent polyethylene bags was studied by several nondestructive and semidestructive analytical methods. X-ray diffraction, infrared spectroscopy, and optical microscopy (differential interference contrast microscopy and phase contrast microscopy) were applied to polyethylene films. X-ray diffraction was used to distinguish variations in the crystalline phase, infrared spectroscopy was used to distinguish variations in the molecular components, and optical microscopy was used to distinguish the different surface morphologies. The results show that X-ray diffraction classifies the crystalline phase of the film depending on whether it is made from low-density polyethylene, linear low-density polyethylene, or high-density polyethylene; that infrared spectroscopy is useful to distinguish the molecular components and it is the most discriminating technique; and that optical microscopy discriminate films easily by their morphological differences.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.